Judgment:
1. The applicant is a retired officer working as Dy. CSTE/SCR on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.2000. He was served with a charge memo dated 31.7.2000 containing four articles alleging the he failed to abide by the prescribed procedure in holding negotiations with the convenor and the contractor, being the third Member and the Finance Member of the Tender Committee. It was also alleged that he recommended high rates for acceptance in the tender for manufacturing, supplying and fixing of check rails on PSC sleepers between two stations thus causing pecuniary loss to the Railways. It was further alleged that as Member of the Tender Committee he recommended rates in excess of 25% of the agreement quantity for the contract thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Railways. The last article is charge was that he had recommended wrongly for waival of Liquidated Damage (LD) imposed earlier on the contractor causing under benefit to the contractor.
4. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there was no consultation with the Railway Board before issuing the charge memo.
5. It is however seen from the proceedings dated 31.5.95 (Annex. R-I) filed with the reply that such a course was permissible. Para-3 of the above Railway Boards letter reads as follows : "(iii) In cases where the lapses committed by the defaulting officers have been pinpointed and the extent and nature of irregularity are such that minor penalty action is warranted and the case at the time of forwarding to Board is likely to be time barred within the next 4 months, chargesheet for only major penalty may be issued before sending the case to Board. While forwarding such cases, the General Manager of the Railway may indicate separately that major penalty charge-sheet is being issued against such officers since it would take atleast 2-3 months time before the first stage advice from CVC is obtained. However if the case is not likely to be time-barred, Railways may forward the case to Board for further action with the recommendations of the General Manager." 6. Thus it is clear that a charge sheet for major penalty would be issued before sending the case to the Railway Board in case of urgent nature. In the instant case as the applicant was retiring on 31.7.2000 and till that time the investigation by the CBI was going on and also it was stated in the said report that this came to light in 2000 when the connected files with regard to above contracts were looked into. If the applicant was allowed to retire there was a provision given by the President to Initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules if the allegations relate prior to four years. Hence as there was no time for the authorities to consult the Railway Board a charge memo has been issued. The respondents have also stated very clearly in the reply the reasons for issuing the charge memo without consulting the Railway Board.
7. The allegations are very serious involving heavy loss to the Railways and the applicant being the responsible member of the Tender Committee was alleged to have committed certain irregularities.
9. It is stated that the applicant had also filed his explanation to the charge memo. However, we find that no inquiry officer has been appointed so far, though the charge memo was issued in July, 2000.
10. In the circumstances the respondents are directed to complete the inquiry within a period not later than six months from today.
11. It is needless to say that the applicant shall co-operate in the inquiry.
12. The request of the Counsel for the applicant for payment of leave encashment cannot be granted at this stage since the proceedings are still pending. It is admitted that the applicant is receiving 100% pension.